Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was not admissible. There is no evidence brought by the appellant on record that any inputs were cleared to other job workers for doing certain processes. Lower authorities have, therefore, correctly upheld that Cenvat Credit of ₹ 3,35,142/- is not admissible to the main appellant. The argument taken by the appellant that no further investigation was carried out by the revenue is not correct because the statement dt. 23.09.2009 of Shri Hariom Barisal, General Manager of the main appellant is after the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to the proceedings on confiscation of excess goods found in appellants factory premises and even after the order dt. 21.07.2009 passed by this bench. It i,& also observed from pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 417 dt. 26/02/2007 but the GI Furnace in which those goods were intended to be used was not working. Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager of the main appellants failed to show the stoke of these ingots in the factory during the Panchanama and agreed that they had availed Cenvat Credit without receipt of the said Znic Ingots in their factory. during the Panchnama and agreed that they had availed Cenvat Credit without receipt of the said Zinc Ingots in their factory. During the preventive checks it was also noticed that 5010 Kgs. of GI Wires of 4 mm were dispatched to one unit at Rakholi without payment of duty to which Shri K.S. Dahiya agreed to have cleared said GI Wires clandestinely. In his statement dt. 02.03.2007, Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Man .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te. Ld. Advocate made the bench go through paragraphs 22.3.3 and 22.3.4 of the 010 dt. 28.03.2011. It was his case that even the statement dt. 23.09.2009 of Shri Hariom Bansal, General Manager of the main appellant cannot be relied upon as he is partly agreeing to the statement of Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager which has been retracted. 3.1 So far as clandestine manufacture and clearance of 5010 Kg s. of GI Wire, it was argued by the Ld. Advocate that the case was only made on the basis of a book maintained at the security gate. It was argued by the Ld. Advocate that only on the basis of one document clandestine clearances cannot be established as no inquiry was conducted with the buyer of these goods whether the material was infact re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. So far as clandestine manufacture and clearance of 5010 Kgs. of GI Wire, involving duty of ₹ 32,705/- is concerned, it is observed from the Panchnama dt.02.03.2007 that the same is made only on the basis of a register maintained by an employee of the main appellant at the factory gate. There is no other corroborative evidence in the form of excess / unaccounted raw materials found in the factory premises of the main appellant. No investigation has been done from the buyer of these finished goods to arrive at the right picture. Ld. Advocate has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CCE, Haldia Vs. Lord s Chemicals Ltd. (supra) th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 009, dt. 21.07.2009 passed by this bench with respect to other appeals filed by the same appellants with respect to confiscation of 4485 Kgs. of GI Wire seized in the factory premises of the main appellant on the date of visit by the central excise officers. Ld. Advocate strongly argued that in this order it has been held by CESTAT that there was no malafide intension on the part of Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager of the main appellant and therefore penalty imposed upon him was set aside. It was the case of Ld. Advocate that the present proceedings are also based on the same investigation, therefore, no penalty can be held to be imposable upon Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager of the main appellant in these proceedings also. It is observed fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates